4 ms·
Why is that “obvious” and why is the “other” side the religious one and not your “design” assertion? I’m not an expert on such subjects but it seems more close
by cheschire 5y ago
Why is that “obvious” and why is the “other” side the religious one and not your “design” assertion?
I’m not an expert on such subjects but it seems more closely related to the concepts of evolution to say natural selection does not show preference for abnormally long lived individuals because it is unknown or unimportant at time of procreation which traits lead towards lifetime longevity beyond short term hunter gatherer traits.
- ryeights 5y agoUnder the traditional view, the most evolutionarily advantageous individual is one that lives forever and continues to spread their genes indefinitely, producing hundreds of offspring. Why is this not what we see in practice?
- Rury 5y agoI think it's because, we would live forever, but something goes awry after being mature for so long that our bodies haven't evolved far enough to counteract yet. We solve this by sexually reproducing, which resets the clock on age, so our cell line is still able to live on. We do this instead of resetting our mature bodies because reseting 1 or few cells is easier than resetting/replacing billions that are dysfunctional. So we sorta evolved on the path of least resistance required to live forever, and require further evolution before our mature bodies can do the same, so to speak.
- jstanley 5y agoThere's no advantage to having a single individual who lives and reproduces forever compared to having his offspring, and his offspring's offspring, etc. reproduce forever.